HAFA is the first program to set nationwide standards on the Short Sale process, timelines and documents.   HAFA also creates significant financial incentives for borrowers, services and investors to drive growth in short sale transactions. 

Register for this Live Course Now.  Presented by Cari Pace.  Info

Join DAR Members during Legislative Day on May 4 for an exciting day in Sacramento at the Capital. Governor Jerry Brown is slated to speak to during the morning session. Attend a hosted luncheon, visit our legislators offices and enjoy a very interesting reception in the evening. More 

CAR's Assistant General Counsel, Gov Hutchinson, will present Legal Updates on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM followed in the afternoon by a course on the Residential Purchase Agreement and related forms from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM.  There's no charge for the Legal Update, but the RPA course is $59 for members and $69 for non-members.

Ethics Case Interpretation

Case #2-14 Time at Which Modification to Offer at Subagency is Communicated is a Determining Factor (Revised Case #9-26 May, 1988.  Transferred to Article 2 November, 1994.  Cross-Reference Case #3-7.)

REALTOR® A listed the home of Seller X and filed the listing with the Board's MLS. The property data sheet indicated, among other things, the compensation that REALTOR® A was offering to the other Participants if they were successful in finding a buyer for Seller X's home.

During the next few weeks, REALTOR® A authorized several Participants of the Multiple Listing Service, including REALTOR® C, to show Seller X's home to potential buyers. Although several showings were made, no offers to purchase were forthcoming. REALTOR® A and Seller X, in discussing possible means of making the property more salable, agreed to reduce the listed price. REALTOR® A also agreed to lower the sales commission by one percent. REALTOR® A then proceeded to call the other MLS Participants to advise them that he was modifying the blanket unilateral offer of subagency that he had made with regard to Seller X's home by reducing it by one half of a percent. Upon receiving the call, REALTOR® C responded that he was working with Prospect Z who appeared to be very interested in purchasing the property and who would probably make an offer to purchase it within the next day or two. REALTOR® C indicated that he would expect to receive the amount of subagency compensation that had been published originally in the MLS rather than the reduced amount of compensation now being offered to him, since he had already shown the property to Prospect Z and expected to have an offer to purchase shortly. REALTOR® A responded that since Prospect Z had not as yet signed an offer to purchase, the modified offer of compensation for subagency serices was applicable.

The following day, REALTOR® C obtained an offer to purchase from Prospect Z. The offer was submitted to the Seller by REALTOR® A and was accepted. At the closing, REALTOR® A provided REALTOR® C with a check for subagency services in an amount reflecting the modified offer that had been communicated to REALTOR® C by phone. REALTOR® C refused

to accept the check and indicated that he felt that REALTOR® A's actions were in violation of the Code of Ethics.  REALTOR® C filed a complaint with the Board's Grievance Committee alleging violation of Articles 2 and 3 on the part of REALTOR® A and cited Standard of Practice 3-2 in support of the charge.

During the hearing, REALTOR® C stated that REALTOR® A's modification of the amount of compensation that he was offering for subagency services constituted a misrepresentation through concealment of pertinent facts by not providing REALTOR® C with specific written notification of such modification prior to the time that REALTOR® C had begun his efforts to interest the purchaser in the listed property. REALTOR® A defended his actions by indicating that timely notice of

the modification of the amount of compensation that he was offering for subagency services had been provided to REALTOR® C by telephone prior to the time that REALTOR® C had obtained a signed offer to purchase. REALTOR® A also indicated that his modified offer of compensation for subagency services had been bulletined to all Participants through the

MLS "hot sheet." REALTOR® A indicated that in accordance with the obligations expressed in Standard of Practice 3-2, the modification of compensation offered for subagency services had been communicated to REALTOR® C prior to the time a prospective purchaser had signed an offer to purchase. REALTOR® A also commented that had REALTOR® C produced the signed offer to purchase prior to the time REALTOR® A had communicated the modified offer of subagency compensation, then REALTOR® A would have willingly paid the amount originally offered.